Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5732123" data-attributes="member: 48965">I'm going to disagree with this. I think the problem is that 4e associates a very specific combat role with what appear to be pretty specific archetypes. As an example let's say I want to create the striker paladin... well the striker holy warrior is an Avenger, not exactly the knight in shining armor archetype. His class abilities, proficiencies, skills, powers, etc. all tend to push for a lightly armored stealthy warrior-assasin. I guess I just don't see how, without spending alot of feats this archetype can be forced into that of the shining knight in armor paladin with some healing powers who is a striker.   I would agree to a point... hybrids are only effective if the stats and abilities compliment each other... if not you can seriously end up hampering yourself. Themes and multi-classing are good if you want a dash of another class... but I don't think they are going to make your defending Paladin into a striker... at least not an effective one.  This is what I was talking about above... without attribute synergy you can end up with a real mess going this route when trying to patch together the character you want to play.  I think this is only true because they don't currently have the multi-class and hybrid options available for most of them... but I actually find many of the essential classes have secondary roles built in as well.</blockquote>